landis sued by uci?

[LauraLyn]

Proof please, or a link.

The link was provided above by marcozero. Please read the thread.

If this is not sufficient for you, please read the court papers in the Lance Armstrong vs. USADA Federal court case.

Stating there is no law suit by the UCI against Floyd Landis in The Clinic can only mean that you have not followed either the Armstrong or the Landis case very well.

Please don't ask people to repeat the links before reading the thread.

 

[marcozero]

Not to mention that there is no personal jurisdiction. Landis didn't make any statements THERE, he made them in the US. So their case will never see anything like an actual application of the judgment regardless. Here, hold out your hand and let me give you what the UCI will get from Landis...let me unzip first.

Of course.

But the question was is there any action or was it an empty threat from the UCI and the answer is there is a lawsuit in Switzerland. I'm not saying it is not ridiculous. Maybe like you say it amounts to an empty threat anyway. You seem to assume that Floyd would loose. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if the UCI has a case or not but I would like to see the opposite outcome.

 

[Elagabalus]

The link was provided above by marcozero. Please read the thread.

If this is not sufficient for you, please read the court papers in the Lance Armstrong vs. USADA Federal court case.

Stating there is no law suit by the UCI against Floyd Landis in The Clinic can only mean that you have not followed either the Armstrong or the Landis case very well.

Please don't ask people to repeat the links before reading the thread.

I think you should probably just stop now before you awaken the sleeping giants and fill them with a terrible resolve ...

 

[QuickStepper]

Nope, wrong answer counselor: Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick EDIT: Wrong case. I will find the right one, but irrespective, the Swiss court has no personal jurisdiction over a statement made inside the US by a US citizen.

Floyd didn't make the statements in Switzerland, he made them in the US. They have no personal jurisdiction. The court will only determine that issue, and then throw it out.

I'm only responding to the material you bolded from my post, in which I wrote:

The U.S. has no treaty with Switzerland (or any other country) pusuant to which foreign judgments are automatically recognized. Enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit commenced here in the U.S. seeking to enforce the judgment. The U.S. court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment according to U.S. law.

I don't know why you would argue that this statement is wrong. 1. We have no treaty with Switzerland pursuant to which Swiss judgments are automatically enforceable in the U.S. 2. As such, enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit filed here in the U.S. by the Swizz judgment creditor.

Automatic recognition of judgments from other jurisdictions in U.S. state and federal courts is accomplished by way of the issuance of letters rogatory. Enforcement of a Swizz judgment in U.S. courts cannot be accomplished by means of a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782. See the Secretary of State''s circular diplomatic note of 2/3/76 to the Chiefs of Mission in Washington, D.C., Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1976, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, 306, 311 at 309 (1977). Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. That court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

As for lack of personal jurisdiction over Landis, I agree with you, and I never said that a Swiss court could acquire such jurisdiction in a manner that would be enforceable here in the U.S. by publication. It might be valid in Switzerland and thus could cause Landis problems in Switzerland, but if he has no assets there and never goes back to Switzerland, then he has nothing to be concerned about.

 

[LauraLyn]

Of course.

But the question was is there any action or was it an empty threat from the UCI and the answer is there is a lawsuit in Switzerland. I'm not saying it is not ridiculous. Maybe like you say it amounts to an empty threat anyway. You seem to assume that Floyd would loose. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if the UCI has a case or not but I would like to see the opposite outcome.

Floyd has until 12 September to respond. He may be playing this well in waiting for so much to come out regarding Armstrong and UCI.

I could imagine UCI would now be pleased to settle out of court.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think Floyd made the complained-of statement in Germany.

As I remember it, the statement complained of regarded his accusation in his email in relation to the UCI. Those statements were made in the US. If they were reprinted in Germany, that still does not give PJ for enforcement of foreign judgments.

One other little wrinkle, California has not adopted the Uniform Act, and last I checked, Floyd's domicile is California. Again, the Swiss courts and Swiss courts can say anything they like, but that judgment never see's Floyd pay a dime.

 

[QuickStepper]

I think Floyd made the complained-of statement in Germany.

You guys are talking about minimum contacts. If that's so, then perhaps. I was speaking about the fact that Floyd wasn't available for personal service within the jurisdiction. Related concepts but two different aspects of jurisdiction.

Can we stop the argument now?

 

[Elagabalus]

I'm only responding to the material you bolded from my post, in which I wrote:



I don't know why you would argue that this statement is wrong. 1. We have no treaty with Switzerland pursuant to which Swiss judgments are automatically enforceable in the U.S. 2. As such, enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit filed here in the U.S. by the Swizz judgment creditor.

Automatic recognition of judgments from other jurisdictions in U.S. state and federal courts is accomplished by way of the issuance of letters rogatory. Enforcement of a Swizz judgment in U.S. courts cannot be accomplished by means of a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782. See the Secretary of State''s circular diplomatic note of 2/3/76 to the Chiefs of Mission in Washington, D.C., Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1976, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, 306, 311 at 309 (1977). Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. That court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

As for lack of personal jurisdiction over Landis, I agree with you, and I never said that a Swiss court could acquire such jurisdiction in a manner that would be enforceable here in the U.S. by publication. It might be valid in Switzerland and thus could cause Landis problems in Switzerland, but if he has no assets there and never goes back to Switzerland, then he has nothing to be concerned about.

OK, OK, guys I really don't want to see 14 pages of you two bickering. That is all. Don't make me come over there!

 

[MarkvW]

I think you should probably just stop now before you awaken the sleeping giants and fill them with a terrible resolve ...

If you think the Lance Fanboys are tough, wait 'til you tangle with the Floyd Fanboys!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Proof please, or a link.

Oh man please stop the madness of asking for some type of proof or link. It is a message board nothing more. There is no way lauralyn can produce this because it does not exist. LMAO There is no reason to just bang away asking for it. ;-)


ComeON coach.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm only responding to the material you bolded from my post, in which I wrote:



I don't know why you would argue that this statement is wrong. 1. We have no treaty with Switzerland pursuant to which Swiss judgments are automatically enforceable in the U.S. 2. As such, enforcement has to be by way of a separate suit filed here in the U.S. by the Swizz judgment creditor.

Automatic recognition of judgments from other jurisdictions in U.S. state and federal courts is accomplished by way of the issuance of letters rogatory. Enforcement of a Swizz judgment in U.S. courts cannot be accomplished by means of a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782. See the Secretary of State''s circular diplomatic note of 2/3/76 to the Chiefs of Mission in Washington, D.C., Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1976, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, 306, 311 at 309 (1977). Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. That court will then determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

As for lack of personal jurisdiction over Landis, I agree with you, and I never said that a Swiss court could acquire such jurisdiction in a manner that would be enforceable here in the U.S. by publication. It might be valid in Switzerland and thus could cause Landis problems in Switzerland, but if he has no assets there and never goes back to Switzerland, then he has nothing to be concerned about.

Exactly. The hurdle of PJ will never be cleared, thus no go on enforcement of judgment. I was pointing out that the threshold issue of PJ will be all the court will decide, and that is an easy call. Floyd made those statements in the US.

 

[MarkvW]

You guys are talking about minimum contacts. If that's so, then perhaps. I was speaking about the fact that Floyd wasn't available for personal service within the jurisdiction. Related concepts but two different aspects of jurisdiction.

Can we stop the argument now?

I'm not talking about minimum contacts. If the statement was made in the EU, I am assuming that the statement is actionable in the EU. On the other hand, I agree with Chewb that McQuaid would probably be SOL trying to sanction a statement made by Floyd in the USA.

This whole lawsuit thing is totally weird. Floyd has said that he's had his lawyers look for McQuaid's lawsuit and they were not able to find it. This is after McQuaid threatened Floyd. One would have thought that McQuaid would have told Floyd exactly where the lawsuit could be found.

Something is really goofy with this whole thing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you think the Lance Fanboys are tough, wait 'til you tangle with the Floyd Fanboys!

I don't even have to be a Floyd Fanboy (I'm a charter member) to nail the PJ issue. The most virulent Floyd Hater can peg the problem there. The lawsuit commenced after Floyd sent his email. He was nowhere near Switzerland then. He couldn't even afford a ticket to Switzerland then. He probably didn't have the money to eat at The Melting Pot then (that place if ****ing ridiculously expensive for some ****ing melted cheese...). So PJ does not exist.

Okay, I'll quit as these legal squabbles tend to make the other forum members lose all bowel control upon reading them, and I don't want to be responsible for that kind of thing.

 

[the big ring]

I'm not talking about minimum contacts. If the statement was made in the EU, I am assuming that the statement is actionable in the EU. On the other hand, I agree with Chewb that McQuaid would probably be SOL trying to sanction a statement made by Floyd in the USA.

This whole lawsuit thing is totally weird. Floyd has said that he's had his lawyers look for McQuaid's lawsuit and they were not able to find it. This is after McQuaid threatened Floyd. One would have thought that McQuaid would have told Floyd exactly where the lawsuit could be found.

Something is really goofy with this whole thing.

Nothing to stop UCI from claiming they sued, have Landis search and find nothing. Landis tells the press. UCI reads the press. UCI files suit now.

Is there a date of original filing in that media release? I don't read French well enough to work it out.

ETA: or Landis could be FOS and the suit was always there.

Seems strange timing that a suit from 16 months ago is up now. Is it 12 months then gets publication in the media allowing 4 months reponse? Sounds unlikely to me. But no other period of time is round enough to make sense to me either. But what would I know. Just a bone idle lazy winker.

 

[the big ring]

Google has been broken by LA's lawsuits and bannination. Cannot find the article where Floyd claimed to have searched for the lawsuit to no avail. Hmmm I read CN mostly, will try to find it there.

 

[the big ring]

Bingo. It was on German television.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-vs-landis-the-missing-lawsuit

 

[the big ring]

Goddamn my liking for this guy just went up a notch.

Landis’ reaction was one of bluff and mocking contempt. He set up a fake legal firm and began to email the UCI’s legal team. He even set up a website for his fictitious legal firm, Greymanrod.com (the website has since been removed), creating a lawyer to represent him. One of the legal team’s areas of expertise was in Vegetable Rights Abuse Advocacy.

 

[the big ring]

At the worlds in September 2011, McQuim said this

“It’s definitely going ahead but I don’t know when. I haven’t spoken to legal but they’re looking after it. You can’t dictate resolutions on legal cases. They go at their own speed and you have to let the lawyers take care of it.”

 

[the big ring]

So I am going to take a wild stab and say McQuaid claimed to sue in May 2011 but did not actually lodge until September 2011, which is why now Landis has till September 2012 to reply.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Oh man please stop the madness of asking for some type of proof or link. It is a message board nothing more. There is no way lauralyn can produce this because it does not exist. LMAO There is no reason to just bang away asking for it. ;-)


ComeON coach.

Lol, this is similar to whenever someone claims "Well Lemond doped too", then when I ask them to please post the supposed credible source, they scurry away & it's as if crickets are chirping. As you say, "it doesn't exist", but they continue beating that dead horse knowing it isn't true. Applaud their efforts.

 

[LauraLyn]

Google has been broken by LA's lawsuits and bannination. Cannot find the article where Floyd claimed to have searched for the lawsuit to no avail. Hmmm I read CN mostly, will try to find it there.

Bock Letter to McQuaid, August 8, 2012 (as filed with the US Federal court, Austin): "the UCI discovered nothing through the email but rather has contended the email was not evidence of anything and sued Mr. Landis for defamation based on its content"

Ferrari also couldn't find the letter.

The suit is real.

 

[Velodude]

Nothing to stop UCI from claiming they sued, have Landis search and find nothing. Landis tells the press. UCI reads the press. UCI files suit now.

Is there a date of original filing in that media release? I don't read French well enough to work it out.

ETA: or Landis could be FOS and the suit was always there.

Seems strange timing that a suit from 16 months ago is up now. Is it 12 months then gets publication in the media allowing 4 months reponse? Sounds unlikely to me. But no other period of time is round enough to make sense to me either. But what would I know. Just a bone idle lazy winker.

It is all theatrics by Fat Pat and the UCI to posthumously show intent to sue Floyd for defamation when it was originally all hollow fire and brimstone.

UCI claim as a non profit organization to be paupers (to need Armstrong to graciously fund the purchase of the Sysmex machine) and they are not going to go beyond expending basic costs of filing and satisfying local substitute service rules for the sake of appearances.

 

[LauraLyn]

It is all theatrics by Fat Pat and the UCI to posthumously show intent to sue Floyd for defamation when it was originally all hollow fire and brimstone. . . .

Pat & Co. may be wishing today that it really had been "hollow."

We only need to wait a few more days to know.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Bingo. It was on German television.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-vs-landis-the-missing-lawsuit

Did they interview him in Germany, or did they interview him in the US?

 

[ToreBear]

So someone said to the UCI they were corrupt, and they launch a law suit, against this person. Well if Floyd sends a letter to the court explaining why he said what he did, perhaps the court would either laugh the UCI lawyers out of court, or demand they prove it is not true.

I doubt swiss courts have much patience for organizations who can't take criticism.